Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Watch Has 8GB of Storage, Limited to 2GB for Music and 75MB for Photos

Apple Watch Has 8GB of Storage, Limited to 2GB for Music and 75MB for Photos

macuserpl said:
So the original iPod could hold more songs? Wait, really? I'm gonna buy it anyway... :p
Click to expand...


Original iPod had 5 GB of storage with FireWire. I still have it along with the first ipod touch. I think the original is the best MP3 they made. No frills, no BS. Just the wheel and black and white screen with menu driven UI to play the songs.

The 2 GB for music on the watch is BS. Should've been more than that or acting as a remote for iPod without reaching to the phone or iTunes on os x.
 
Last edited:
I have a question about the watch. If the only device that the watch can connect via BT to is the iphone. So this means that BT headphones can NOT pair and connect to the watch? If this is correct this a a huge fail.
 
jlseattle said:
If you don't have the money just skip to Rev 2 (which is what I'm doing). Unlike when the iPhone came out I don't "need" the watch as much as I needed the iPhone. So going to wait for Rev 2 product.

What we are seeing here are Rev 1 hardware and features. Rev 2 will be much stronger and as moving forward into other revs.
Click to expand...

Do you think Rev 2 won't need an iPhone to work? I really like the Apple Watch design, if it weren't so useless I'll definitely buy it but I just can't justify spending $15,000 on a Watch that will be outdated in less than a year.
 
the8thark said:
Not even close. The Shuffle has a headphone port. And that's why for music the shuffle wins.
Click to expand...

It's 2015, bluetooth headphones work amazing for working out.

----------
BigInDallas said:
I have a question about the watch. If the only device that the watch can connect via BT to is the iphone. So this means that BT headphones can NOT pair and connect to the watch?
Click to expand...

This is incorrect information being spread on this site. The watch can connect to bluetooth headphones without needing your phone with you.
 
b166er said:
It blows my mind that the $350 version and the $17K version have the exact same tech specs. I realize the price is directly related to the fashion factor. It's just weird to see a gadget that does the same exact job across the board regardless of price, aside from the screen size which is a surprisingly modest price increase.
Click to expand...

It's is not just the fashion aspect. Most of the value there is the gold that is quoted at $1,166.50 p/ ounce. Not sure how much is applied the the watch but it seems to be a large chunk.
 
Trik said:
I agree, but that is fashion exactly right? Form over function? It's not like a Prada bag holds things better than Jansport.
Click to expand...

It can be a fashion item. But it's also a gadget. It can have value to someone who doesn't care about fashion at all. I can't think of any other gadget that has a huge price range that has no bearing on the function of the gadget itself. A purse is a purse, yeah, but usually with an electronic there is a benefit to spending more money.

Like I said- I get it. I'm just surprised that at its heart, every apple watch has the exact same specs.
 
yaxomoxay said:
Because you might be in a situation where you do not want, or you can't use the iPhone. You can go running without the iPhone while being still able to listen to the music you want. You might be waiting for the iPhone to charge in your car while being able to check the time, see a few pics, and listen to music.
iPhone is necessary for 85% of the functionalities, but the Apple Watch can clearly function without it.
Click to expand...

Is this the only thing the Apple Watch can do by itself? Is there a FAQ somewhere about its funcionalities without needing an iPhone?
 
b166er said:
It blows my mind that the $350 version and the $17K version have the exact same tech specs. I realize the price is directly related to the fashion factor. It's just weird to see a gadget that does the same exact job across the board regardless of price, aside from the screen size which is a surprisingly modest price increase.
Click to expand...

Apple has said the Edition will be sold in limited quantities, so it IS mostly a fashion statement. There wouldn't be any point in adding extra features because the majority of people will never spend $10k on a watch, and would never see those extra features. The normal watches top out around $1000, which seems consistent with other Apple products.
 
2 GB is plenty for music. I don't see the watch as the place to store your whole collection, just a subset of songs that you can use to work out with or something you want to take to a friend's party to play via bluetooth.

If we were to assume it's 6 MB a song, that's more than 330 songs. I don't even have 1/3 of that on my phone anyway.

No complaints.
 
baller1308 said:
Not even sure why you would want to look at photos on such a small screen if you have a phone in your pocket.

The storage for music is decent, enough for a workout playlist.
Click to expand...

you are right. also the photos are being compressed. so its ok. 75mb just looked tiny.
 
It needs a camera as well for those quick shots if you happen to not bring the phone.

I am still not totally sold on this watch.
 
Boatboy24 said:
Exactly. And if I must use a cable, an armband is a far more convenient location to plug in to. And if I'm running, cycling, or otherwise working out, I'm running, cycling or otherwise working out. I don't need to see my notifications, meeting invites, text messages, etc. And I sure don't want those around me flying at 20 mph on a bike looking at their phone to see who posted the latest baby photo on Facebook. If the watch can play music utilizing wireless headphones, and give me some simple stats/feedback on my workout, that's good. GPS would be nice if I'm out on a run or bike ride, but this is gen 1. If that is a deal breaker for you, then wait.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Also if people are that worried about GPS/precise tracking just use the watch for time and heart rate (for calories burned) and when done use an app like Runkeeper where you can custom edit your runs/easily add a detailed map of your run afterwards on their website and it will tell you the exact distance you went. I do this all the time when GPS isn't working/accidentally turned off on my phone.
 
MasterRyu2011 said:
2 GB is plenty for music. I don't see the watch as the place to store your whole collection, just a subset of songs that you can use to work out with or something you want to take to a friend's party to play via bluetooth.

If we were to assume it's 6 MB a song, that's more than 330 songs. I don't even have 1/3 of that on my phone anyway.

No complaints.
Click to expand...

It's workable, but the question for me is what options you'll have for selecting that subset. When the shuffle first came out Apple added all kinds of auto-sync options to iTunes. You could have it completely refresh your library every time you plugged it in, and even set up smart playlists so you get all your least-recently-played songs loaded up or whatever. What options are they giving us for the Watch?
 
avanpelt said:
I figured as much. Using the on-device music storage seems pretty useless to me if you can only play music via the watch as a speaker. This first-gen watch has "public obnoxiousness" written all over it between the music playback and the speakerphone.
Click to expand...

Oh for the love of... From Apple's own web page: "Or leave your iPhone at home and listen to your favorite synced playlist right from Apple Watch using wireless Bluetooth headphones."

Why on earth would anyone think Apple would have music playing from a wrist mounted speaker as you're running? Come on folks, a little common sense please!
 
Hattig said:
Why would someone take an iPhone on their run?
Click to expand...

I run with my phone all the time - and clearly many others do as well with the number of fitness apps on the App Store (RunKeeper, Nike+, Strava, etc.)

Since the Apple Watch does not have GPS I will continue to run with my phone. But I do see appeal for pairing it with an Apple Watch. I typically run with my phone in my pocket so it isn't readily accessible. Many times I have wanted the ability to switch songs or turn off RunKeeper when I am finished with my run / race or even get an update on my progress. All these tasks would be much easier with an Apple Watch. I have experimented with armbands to have better access to my phone but they have never worked well for me and most of the plastic covers don't provide great access to the screen with your finger.

I am excited about the prospects of using an Apple Watch with my iPhone while running.

With all that said, I have a 5S - running with a 6S does not sound like fun - although truth be told I have not tried it.

SCR
 
MagicKnights said:
It's 2015, bluetooth headphones work amazing for working out.
Click to expand...
Show me a reasonably priced and actually good pair of bluetooth headphones and I will agree with you. The tech is not there yet to actually make good ones.

Hattig said:
512MB or 256MB is my bet too. Apple never over-supplies if they can get away with it.

It'll probably be a triple stacked SoC, RAM, Flash package, very small.
Click to expand...
I agree totally. Just enough to get it all to work and that's it. Will make future upgrades that up the ram amount a necessity because more intensive watch apps will come around that can use the extra ram.
 
smiddlehurst said:
Oh for the love of... From Apple's own web page: "Or leave your iPhone at home and listen to your favorite synced playlist right from Apple Watch using wireless Bluetooth headphones."
Click to expand...

Is this a sign of the future? The slow death of wired headphones on Apple devices? Due to no more headphone ports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back